What an interesting question.
It reminds me of the familiar and famous passage at the start of Calvin’s Institutes:
Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone… Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him… On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.
I think it is in this duality of reverential worship of Christ, and honesty with ourselves, that we grow to understand both our own nature as well as that of our Maker.
I also think we should feel free to depart from confessional standards whenever they cannot be substantiated by Scripture. At the same time, these confessions can serve as clear windows that help us to better perceive the meaning of the Scriptures. The radical individualism in interpretation has its advantages, but it can also disconnect us from the wisdom of an entire community and tradition. And of course, there are a variety of confessional standards, so we do have to exercise some judgment about which one to follow!
I think if we follow the argument in Hebrews from chapter 4 through to chapter 7, we find that the author wants to emphasize that Jesus is a relatable and a sufficient Savior.
We find in Hebrews 7:26-28,
For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He doesn’t need to offer sacrifices every day, as high priests do—first for their own sins, then for those of the people. He did this once for all time when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak, but the promise of the oath, which came after the law, appoints a Son, who has been perfected forever.
Yes, we need to affirm that Jesus is fully human. But we also affirm that he is fully and always God. And God, of course, cannot sin. It’s inconceivable for God to not be holy.
In his commentary on Hebrews, R.T. Frances writes, “It is the combination of his humanness and his sinlessness that makes him uniquely qualified to be the Savior of humanity (“he must be humanly perfect as well as perfectly human,” Montefiore, 129).”
Two points come to my mind. The first is that Jesus’ human nature was not fallen. Second, it was united to the Second Person of the Trinity.
So what does it mean that he was tempted? Stephen Wellum offers this explanation in The Person of Christ: An Introduction,
…even though Christ was unfallen and impeccable, the Son, as our covenant representative, had to render human obedience for us. The Son’s action in and through his human nature did not change the integrity of that nature; he lived, acted, and faced every temptation as a true man to redeem us…
Jesus is impeccable because he is the eternal Son who subsists and acts in both natures, but it is also because of his reliance on the Spirit at work in him that Jesus did not sin. From Jesus’s conception, the Spirit sanctified, gifted and empowered the Son in his humanity, and Jesus, through his entire life, obeyed for us as a man by the Spirit…
What does this mean for us?
I think, first, it means that we can take far greater joy in our union with Christ and that the Spirit has filled us.
Our salvation is not just that we “believed the gospel” - as wonderful as that reality is - but that we are now united to Christ and filled with the Spirit. Therefore, we have all the more reason to be holy, just as Jesus was without sin.
I look forward to learning from other perspectives on this question.